arxiv: 2604.21372 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 📊 stat.AP

Recognition: unknown

Optimal basis risk weighting in expectile-based parametric insurance

Markus Johannes Maier, Matthias Scherer

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 13:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.AP

keywords parametric insurancebasis riskexpectilesutility maximizationoptimal weightinghurricane insurancelocation-scale distributions

0 comments

The pith

Existence and uniqueness of the optimal basis risk weighting in expectile parametric insurance are fixed by boundary conditions in a utility maximization framework.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that for parametric insurance contracts that pay according to conditional expectiles, a single weighting parameter for basis risk can be optimal under conditions derived from boundary requirements in a utility-maximization problem. This characterization reduces uncertainty about how policyholders value the mismatch between index-based payouts and actual losses. The authors also prove that location-scale loss distributions make the derivatives of conditional expectiles separable. When no interior optimum exists, they compare the resulting utility to the cases of no insurance and full indemnity. A simulation study with hurricane data illustrates how the optimum shifts with premium loading and risk aversion.

Core claim

In the utility-maximization setting for expectile-based parametric insurance, the optimal basis risk weighting exists and is unique precisely when a set of boundary conditions holds; otherwise the utility of the weighted contract is compared directly to no coverage and full indemnity. The analysis further establishes that conditional expectiles have separable derivatives precisely when the underlying loss distribution belongs to the location-scale family.

What carries the argument

The optimal basis risk weighting parameter, identified by solving the utility-maximization problem subject to boundary conditions on the expectile payment function.

If this is right

When boundary conditions fail, the contract's utility is bounded by the no-insurance and full-indemnity utilities.
Location-scale loss distributions allow the derivatives of conditional expectiles to factor into separate location and scale parts.
The optimal weight increases with higher premium loadings and decreases with greater risk aversion in the hurricane simulation.
Spatial loss dependence complicates but does not invalidate the boundary-condition approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Insurers could use the boundary conditions as a diagnostic before offering expectile contracts, checking whether a single weight will suffice for their client base.
The separability result for location-scale families suggests that expectile-based pricing formulas simplify when losses are modeled as scaled shifts of a base distribution.
Extending the framework to multi-period or multi-peril covers would require checking whether the same boundary conditions continue to guarantee uniqueness.

Load-bearing premise

The policyholder's attitude toward basis risk can be summarized by one fixed weighting parameter that does not change with the loss distribution or the expectile level.

What would settle it

An empirical case in which the utility-maximizing weight changes when the loss distribution or expectile level is altered, while all other model elements stay fixed, would show the boundary-condition characterization does not apply.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21372 by Markus Johannes Maier, Matthias Scherer.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Histogram of bootstrapped one-minute maximum sustained wind speed realizations view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Mean, maximum and minimum conditional loss view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Conditional mean, maximum, and minimum loss view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Boundary conditions of Corollary 1 (left) and Theorem 3 (right) for premium loadings ρ ∈ {0.01, 0.2, 0.4}. Horizontal lines correspond to the right-, dotted lines to the left-hand side of (20), resp. (26), evaluated at k = eγ(S|Θ ∈ T ), resp. k = H2(γ). The optimal basis risk weighting α ∗ can be derived from the locations eγ(α∗) (S|Θ ∈ T ) and k = H2 view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Boundary conditions of Corollary 1 (left) and Theorem 3 (right) for risk aversion parameter β ∈ {0.01, 0.15, 0.3}. Horizontal lines correspond to the right-, colored lines to the left-hand side of (20), resp. (26), evaluated at k = eγ(S|Θ ∈ T ), resp. k = H2(γ). The optimal basis risk weighting α ∗ can be derived from the locations eγ(α∗) (S|Θ ∈ T ) and H2 view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of the mean, maximum, and minimum true conditional loss with piece view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Spatial distribution of the policyholders under investigation in Section 4.3. Map generated with R package leaflet. a aSee footnote 23 view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (Bivariate) dependence analysis of wind speeds (Θ view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: (Bivariate) dependence analysis of basis risk ( view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Expected (sub-)utilities U1(γ), U2(γ), and U(γ) for policyholders k = 1, 2 under violation of Assumption A based on 105 simulation runs. A utility-optimal basis risk weighting α ∗ exists if and only if U(γ) admits a maximum on (0, 1). ΛU (x, y) = limt→∞ t C¯ x t , y t = x + y + lim t→∞ t h C 1 − x t , 1 − y t − 1 i , where (C¯) C is the (survival) copula of the random vector (Θ◦ , Θ∗ ), by (34). Th… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Parametric insurance contracts translate index measurements to compensation for policyholders' losses using predefined payment schemes. These need to be designed carefully to keep basis risk, i.e. the disparity between payouts and true damages, small. Previous research has motivated the use of conditional expectiles as payment schemes, whose compensation is impacted by the policyholder's potentially unknown attitude towards basis risk. To alleviate this model uncertainty and to investigate the impact of (hidden) influencing factors, we characterize existence and uniqueness of the optimal basis risk weighting in a utility-maximization framework through a set of boundary conditions. In the absence of an optimal solution, we provide comparisons to the utility of no insurance and full indemnity coverage. We establish a link between location-scale distributions and separability of conditional expectiles' derivatives, thus improving the understanding of these statistical functionals. A simulation study on parametric hurricane insurance visualizes our results, investigates the influence of premium loading and risk aversion on the optimal weighting, and comments on the challenge of (spatial) loss dependence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper characterizes optimal basis-risk weighting for expectile parametric insurance via boundary conditions plus a location-scale separability result, backed by a hurricane simulation, but the single-parameter independence assumption looks narrow.

read the letter

The core advance here is the boundary-condition characterization of the optimal weighting in the utility-max setup, plus the separability link for conditional expectiles under location-scale families. That second piece clarifies how the derivatives behave and could help with model uncertainty around hidden factors. The simulation then shows how premium loading and risk aversion shift the weighting in a hurricane context, and it includes the no-insurance and full-indemnity comparisons when an optimum does not exist. Those elements are useful for anyone designing index-based contracts where basis risk matters for disaster payouts. The work stays within standard utility maximization and does not claim to reduce the optimum to something directly fitted from data, which keeps the circularity burden low. The main limitation is the modeling choice that the policyholder's attitude toward basis risk collapses to one scalar weighting parameter whose value stays fixed across loss distributions and expectile levels. The abstract ties the separability result to location-scale families, so the claimed generality for arbitrary utilities may not hold without those restrictions; if the weighting that solves the first-order condition moves when the loss law or expectile changes, the boundary conditions lose their locating power. The abstract supplies no derivations or numerical details, so the soundness of the existence-uniqueness claim rests entirely on the full proofs. This is aimed at actuarial researchers working on parametric insurance and expectile-based schemes. A reader already using expectiles for basis-risk control will pick up the technical clarification and the simulation insights. It is worth sending to peer review so referees can verify the boundary conditions and check how restrictive the independence assumption really is in the proofs.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a utility-maximization framework for selecting the optimal weighting parameter that balances basis risk in expectile-based parametric insurance contracts. It characterizes existence and uniqueness of this optimum via a set of boundary conditions on the policyholder's utility, provides comparisons to no-insurance and full-indemnity utilities when no interior optimum exists, establishes a link between location-scale families and separability of derivatives of conditional expectiles, and illustrates the results with a simulation study on parametric hurricane insurance that examines the roles of premium loading and risk aversion.

Significance. If the boundary-condition characterization holds under the stated modeling assumptions, the work supplies a practical and theoretically grounded method for mitigating model uncertainty about basis-risk attitudes in parametric insurance design. The connection between location-scale distributions and conditional-expectile derivative separability strengthens the statistical foundation for using expectiles in this setting, while the simulation offers concrete guidance on how premium loading and risk aversion affect the optimal weighting. The explicit comparisons to corner solutions (no insurance or full indemnity) are a useful safeguard for cases where an interior optimum does not exist.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (utility-maximization setup and boundary conditions): The claimed characterization of existence and uniqueness assumes that the policyholder's attitude toward basis risk can be captured by a single scalar weighting parameter that is independent of both the loss distribution and the chosen expectile level. The abstract notes a link to location-scale families and separability of conditional-expectile derivatives, but the manuscript must clarify whether the boundary conditions locate a unique optimum only under these restrictions or for arbitrary utilities and distributions; without this, the generality of the result is unclear and the independence assumption becomes load-bearing.
[Simulation study] Simulation section (hurricane insurance example): The reported effects of premium loading and risk aversion on the optimal weighting are presented numerically, but the manuscript does not supply the exact functional forms of the utility function, the expectile level, or the loss dependence structure used in the Monte Carlo runs. Reproducibility of the visualized results therefore requires these details.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the framework 'characterizes existence and uniqueness... through a set of boundary conditions' but does not indicate whether these conditions are derived from first-order conditions or imposed directly; a brief sentence clarifying this would improve readability.
[Throughout] Notation for the basis-risk weighting parameter and the conditional expectile should be introduced once and used consistently; occasional switches between Greek letters and descriptive phrases make some passages harder to follow.
[Simulation study] The discussion of spatial loss dependence in the simulation would benefit from a short statement on how the dependence structure was calibrated and whether results are robust to alternative copulas.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments. We respond point by point to the major comments and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (utility-maximization setup and boundary conditions): The claimed characterization of existence and uniqueness assumes that the policyholder's attitude toward basis risk can be captured by a single scalar weighting parameter that is independent of both the loss distribution and the chosen expectile level. The abstract notes a link to location-scale families and separability of conditional-expectile derivatives, but the manuscript must clarify whether the boundary conditions locate a unique optimum only under these restrictions or for arbitrary utilities and distributions; without this, the generality of the result is unclear and the independence assumption becomes load-bearing.

Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The framework models the policyholder's attitude toward basis risk via a single scalar weighting parameter that is independent of the loss distribution and expectile level. The boundary conditions characterize existence and uniqueness of the optimum under this setup. The link to location-scale families is used to establish that separability of the derivatives of conditional expectiles holds for this class of distributions, which supports treating the weighting as independent in those cases. For arbitrary utilities and distributions lacking this separability, the optimal weighting may depend on the distribution and expectile level. We will revise the relevant sections to explicitly state the scope of the boundary conditions and the role of the location-scale assumption. revision: yes
Referee: [Simulation study] Simulation section (hurricane insurance example): The reported effects of premium loading and risk aversion on the optimal weighting are presented numerically, but the manuscript does not supply the exact functional forms of the utility function, the expectile level, or the loss dependence structure used in the Monte Carlo runs. Reproducibility of the visualized results therefore requires these details.

Authors: We agree that these details are required for reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will add the exact functional form of the utility function, the specific expectile level, and the precise loss dependence structure (including any copula or correlation parameters) used in the Monte Carlo simulations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper begins with a standard utility-maximization setup that explicitly introduces a single scalar weighting parameter to capture attitude toward basis risk. It then derives boundary conditions characterizing existence and uniqueness of the optimum under that modeling choice, together with an auxiliary result linking location-scale families to separability of conditional-expectile derivatives. These steps are direct mathematical consequences of the stated assumptions and do not reduce the claimed characterization to a fitted quantity, a self-citation, or an unverified ansatz. The framework remains self-contained against external benchmarks; the independence of the weighting parameter from loss law and expectile level is an explicit modeling premise rather than a derived or smuggled result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters or invented entities; relies on standard economic and statistical assumptions whose details are not visible.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Policyholder utility can be expressed as a function of a single basis-risk weighting parameter
Central modeling choice in the utility-maximization framework
domain assumption Conditional expectiles are well-defined and differentiable for the relevant loss distributions
Required for the boundary-condition analysis and separability result

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5467 in / 1188 out tokens · 83942 ms · 2026-05-08T13:22:35.950638+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Parametric insurance market size, 2024

Global Market Insights. Parametric insurance market size, 2024. Accessed on 15th December 2025 viahttps://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/ parametric-insurance-market

2024
[2]

Parametric solutions

Munich Re. Parametric solutions. Accessed on 7th January 2026 athttps://www. munichre.com/en/solutions/for-industry-clients/parametric-solutions.html

2026
[3]

Comprehensive guide to parametric insurance, 2024

Swiss Re. Comprehensive guide to parametric insurance, 2024. Available for down- load athttps://corporatesolutions.swissre.com/alternative-risk-transfer/ parametric-solutions.html

2024
[4]

Lin and W.J

X. Lin and W.J. Kwon. Application of parametric insurance in principle-compliant and innovative ways.Risk Management and Insurance Review, 23(2):121–150, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12146. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1111/rmir.12146

work page doi:10.1111/rmir.12146 2020
[5]

Garcia Ocampo and C

D. Garcia Ocampo and C. Lopez Moreira. Uncertain waters: can paramet- ric insurance help bridge natcat protection gaps?, 2024. ISSN 2522-249X. Accessed on 15th December 2025 viahttps://www.iais.org/uploads/2024/12/ FSI-IAIS-Insights-on-parametric-insurance.pdf

2024
[6]

Louaas and P

A. Louaas and P. Picard. On the design of optimal parametric insurance.The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 2026. ISSN 1554-9658. doi: 10.1057/s10713-026-00113-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1057/s10713-026-00113-x

work page doi:10.1057/s10713-026-00113-x 2026
[7]

What is the most popular parametric solution?, 2020

Swiss Re. What is the most popular parametric solution?, 2020. Accessed on 14th October 2025 athttps://corporatesolutions.swissre.com/insights/knowledge/ what-is-the-most-popular-parametric-solution-cat-in-a-box-explained.html

2020
[8]

O. Mahul. Optimum Area Yield Crop Insurance.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(1):75–82, 1999. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1244451. URLhttps:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1244451

work page doi:10.2307/1244451 1999
[9]

O. Mahul. Optimal insurance against climatic experience.American Journal of Agricul- tural Economics, 83(3):593–604, 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00180. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0002-9092.00180

work page doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00180 2001
[10]

Mahul and B.D

O. Mahul and B.D. Wright. Designing optimal crop revenue insurance.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(3):580–589, 2003. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276. 00457. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8276.00457

work page doi:10.1111/1467-8276 2003
[11]

Bourgeon and R.G

J.-M. Bourgeon and R.G. Chambers. Optimal area-yield crop insurance reconsidered, 2003

2003
[12]

Zhang, K.S

J. Zhang, K.S. Tan, and C. Weng. INDEX INSURANCE DESIGN.ASTIN Bulletin, 49 (2):491–523, 2019. doi: 10.1017/asb.2019.5

work page doi:10.1017/asb.2019.5 2019
[13]

Brown and M

C. Brown and M. Carriquiry. Managing hydroclimatological risk to water supply with option contracts and reservoir index insurance.Water Resources Research, 43(11), 2007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006093

work page doi:10.1029/2007wr006093 2007
[14]

Steinmann, B.P

C.B. Steinmann, B.P. Guillod, C. Fairless, and D.N. Bresch. A generalized framework for designing open-source natural hazard parametric insurance.Environment Systems and Decisions, 43(4):555–568, 2023. ISSN 2194-5411. doi: 10.1007/s10669-023-09934-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09934-x

work page doi:10.1007/s10669-023-09934-x 2023
[15]

Stigler and D

M. Stigler and D. Lobell. Optimal index insurance and basis risk decomposition: an appli- cation to Kenya.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 106(1):306–329, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12375. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 35 10.1111/ajae.12375

work page doi:10.1111/ajae.12375 2024
[16]

Maier and M

M.J. Maier and M. Scherer. Expectiles as basis risk-optimal payment schemes in para- metric insurance.European Actuarial Journal, 2026. ISSN 2190-9741. doi: 10.1007/ s13385-026-00447-w. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13385-026-00447-w

work page doi:10.1007/s13385-026-00447-w 2026
[17]

Bellini, V

F. Bellini, V. Bignozzi, and G. Puccetti. Conditional expectiles, time consistency and mixture convexity properties.Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 82:117–123, 2018. ISSN 0167-6687. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2018.07.001. URLhttps:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167668717303578

work page doi:10.1016/j.insmatheco.2018.07.001 2018
[18]

Bellini and V

F. Bellini and V. Bignozzi. On elicitable risk measures.Quantitative Finance, 15(5):725–733,
[19]

URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14697688

doi: 10.1080/14697688.2014.946955. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14697688. 2014.946955

work page doi:10.1080/14697688.2014.946955 2014
[20]

Delbaen, F

F. Delbaen, F. Bellini, V. Bignozzi, and J.F. Ziegel. Risk measures with the CxLS prop- erty.Finance and Stochastics, 20(2):433–453, 2016. ISSN 1432-1122. doi: 10.1007/ s00780-015-0279-6. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-015-0279-6

work page doi:10.1007/s00780-015-0279-6 2016
[21]

J.F. Ziegel. Coherence and elicitability.Mathematical Finance, 26(4):901–918, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12080

work page doi:10.1111/mafi.12080 2016
[22]

Bellini, B

F. Bellini, B. Klar, A. M¨ uller, and E. Rosazza Gianin. Generalized quantiles as risk mea- sures.Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 54:41–48, 2014. ISSN 0167-6687. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2013.10.015. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0167668713001698

work page doi:10.1016/j.insmatheco.2013.10.015 2014
[23]

Girard, G

S. Girard, G. Stupfler, and A. Usseglio-Carleve. Nonparametric extreme conditional ex- pectile estimation.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 49(1):78–115, 2022. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1111/sjos.12502

work page doi:10.1111/sjos.12502 2022
[24]

Daouia, S

A. Daouia, S. Girard, and G. Stupfler. Estimation of Tail Risk Based on Extreme Expectiles. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 80(2):263–292,
[25]

doi: 10.1111/rssb.12254

ISSN 1369-7412. doi: 10.1111/rssb.12254

work page doi:10.1111/rssb.12254
[26]

Bloemendaal, I.D

N. Bloemendaal, I.D. Haigh, H. de Moel, S. Muis, R.J. Haarsma, and J.C.J.H. Aerts. Storm ibtracs present climate synthetic tropical cyclone tracks, 2022. Version 4. 4TU.ResearchData. dataset

2022
[27]

Newey and J.L

W.K. Newey and J.L. Powell. Asymmetric Least Squares Estimation and Testing.Econo- metrica, 55(4):819–847, 1987. ISSN 00129682, 14680262. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/ stable/1911031

work page arXiv 1987
[28]

M.C. Jones. Expectiles and m-quantiles are quantiles.Statistics & Probability Letters, 20 (2):149–153, 1994. ISSN 0167-7152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7152(94)90031-0. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167715294900310

work page doi:10.1016/0167-7152(94)90031-0 1994
[29]

Bellini, B

F. Bellini, B. Klar, and A. M¨ uller. Expectiles, Omega Ratios and Stochastic Ordering. Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, 20(3):855–873, 2018. ISSN 1573-7713. doi: 10.1007/s11009-016-9527-2. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11009-016-9527-2

work page doi:10.1007/s11009-016-9527-2 2018
[30]

De Vecchi and M

C. De Vecchi and M. Scherer. On expectiles and almost stochastic dominance.In- surance: Mathematics and Economics, 126:103179, 2026. ISSN 0167-6687. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2025.103179. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S016766872500126X

work page doi:10.1016/j.insmatheco.2025.103179 2026
[31]

Daouia, G

A. Daouia, G. Stupfler, and A. Usseglio-Carleve. An expectile computation cook- book.Statistics and Computing, 34(3):103, 2024. ISSN 1573-1375. doi: 10.1007/ s11222-024-10403-x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-024-10403-x

work page doi:10.1007/s11222-024-10403-x 2024
[32]

Corless, G.H

R.M. Corless, G.H. Gonnet, D.E.G. Hare, D.J. Jeffrey, and D.E. Knuth. On the lambert w 36 function.Advances in Computational Mathematics, 5(1):329–359, 1996. ISSN 1572-9044. doi: 10.1007/BF02124750

work page doi:10.1007/bf02124750 1996
[33]

Jensen, A.G

N.D. Jensen, A.G. Mude, and C.B. Barrett. How basis risk and spatiotemporal adverse selection influence demand for index insurance: Evidence from northern kenya.Food Pol- icy, 74:172–198, 2018. ISSN 0306-9192. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.002. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919217301392

work page doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.002 2018
[34]

Batts, E

M.E. Batts, E. Simiu, and L.R. Russell. Hurricane wind speeds in the united states.Journal of the Structural Division, 106(10):2001–2016, 1980. doi: 10.1061/JSDEAG.0005541. URL https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/JSDEAG.0005541

work page doi:10.1061/jsdeag.0005541 2001
[35]

Vickery and L.A

P.J. Vickery and L.A. Twisdale. Prediction of hurricane wind speeds in the united states.Journal of Structural Engineering, 121(11):1691–1699, 1995. doi: 10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:11(1691). URLhttps://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10. 1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:11(1691)

1995
[36]

Vickery, P.F

P.J. Vickery, P.F. Skerlj, and L.A. Twisdale. Simulation of Hurricane Risk in the U.S. Using Empirical Track Model.Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(10):1222–1237, 2000. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1222). URLhttps://ascelibrary.org/doi/ abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1222)

work page doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1222 2000
[37]

Herzog, T

R. Snaiki and T. Wu. Revisiting hurricane track model for wind risk assessment. Structural Safety, 87:102003, 2020. ISSN 0167-4730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. strusafe.2020.102003. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0167473020300825

work page doi:10.1016/j 2020
[38]

Bloemendaal, I.D

N. Bloemendaal, I.D. Haigh, H. de Moel, S. Muis, R.J. Haarsma, and J.C.J.H. Aerts. Generation of a global synthetic tropical cyclone hazard dataset using storm.Scientific Data, 7(1):40, 2020. ISSN 2052-4463. doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-0381-2. URLhttps://doi. org/10.1038/s41597-020-0381-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41597-020-0381-2 2020
[39]

K. Gade. A non-singular horizontal position representation.Journal of Navigation, 63(3): 395–417, 2010. doi: 10.1017/S0373463309990415

work page doi:10.1017/s0373463309990415 2010
[40]

B. Efron. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife.The Annals of Statistics, 7 (1):1–26, 1979

1979
[41]

Tibshirani and B

R.J. Tibshirani and B. Efron.An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, 1993

1993
[42]

Snaiki and S.S

R. Snaiki and S.S. Parida. Climate change effects on loss assessment and mitigation of residential buildings due to hurricane wind.Journal of Building Engineering, 69:106256,
[43]

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106256

ISSN 2352-7102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106256. URLhttps:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710223004357

work page doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106256 2023
[44]

Benami, Z

E. Benami, Z. Jin, M.R. Carter, A. Ghosh, R.J. Hijmans, A. Hobbs, B. Kenduiywo, and D.B. Lobell. Uniting remote sensing, crop modelling and economics for agricultural risk man- agement.Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(2):140–159, 2021. ISSN 2662-138X. doi: 10.1038/s43017-020-00122-y. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-00122-y

work page doi:10.1038/s43017-020-00122-y 2021
[45]

Chatterjee

S. Chatterjee. A new coefficient of correlation.Journal of the American Statistical As- sociation, 116(536):2009–2022, 2021. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2020.1758115. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1758115

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.2020.1758115 2009
[46]

K., & Gill, R

R. Schmidt and U. Stadtm¨ uller. Non-parametric estimation of tail dependence.Scan- dinavian Journal of Statistics, 33(2):307–335, 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-9469.2005.00483.x. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j. 1467-9469.2005.00483.x

work page doi:10.1111/j 2006
[47]

R.H. Jerry. Understanding parametric insurance: A potential tool to help manage pandemic 37 risk. In M.L. Mu˜ noz Paredes and A. Tarasiuk, editors,Covid-19 and Insurance, pages 17–
[48]

ISBN 978-3-031-13753-2

Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023. ISBN 978-3-031-13753-2. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-13753-2 2

2023
[49]

Nelsen.An Introduction to Copulas

R.B. Nelsen.An Introduction to Copulas. Springer New York, New York, NY, 2006. ISBN 978-0-387-28678-5. doi: 10.1007/0-387-28678-0. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ 0-387-28678-0. 38

work page doi:10.1007/0-387-28678-0 2006